I think there are areas where we can find agreement, like extreme risk protection orders IF THEY’RE DON (sic) RIGHT, but this will also take time to get the language right to ensure people’s rights aren’t trampled, which is absent in the liberal process. It’s hard to discuss this with people whose sole goal concerning gun control is expanding government power. Then again, what else is new when dealing with Democrats.

This is surprising coming from Matt Vespa, who is usually a fairly straight shooter. So let’s offer a brief rebuttal, shall we?

First of all, it has to do with being a statist, not democrat, and democrats don’t have the corner on that market. Second, this embraces a false view of the state. The state isn’t God, and cannot know the future. Divination and spiritists are forbidden in the Holy Writ and being wicked, and red flag laws are based on pre-crime judgments, that is, someone makes a judgment (sometimes based on the determination of community witch doctors, or Psychiatrists), that a threat exists enough to deprive a man or woman of his or her means of self defense. This has nothing whatsoever to do with threats, which are already illegal.

Third, we needn’t delineate between gun control, and gun control for the purpose of expanding government power. All gun control has as its purpose the expansion of government power, and all gun control is evil. Fourth, rights are trampled with red flag laws, Matt needn’t attempt to ensure this doesn’t happen. It happens as a function of the process itself.

Not having read any of these ‘laws’, I would be curious as to if the Process of Accusation that someone >is< a "Threat" (not "Made a Threat") is effectively Anonymous… Would be Interesting to see someone 'Accused' under one of these 'laws' turn around and Sue the 'snitch' and Sue the .gov for putting them in a situation where they cannot Confront the Accuser.

Remember, Ladies and Gentlemen, "Snitches get Stitches, Bitchez"…

On March 2, 2019 at 6:31 pm, equilibrist said:

All states already have involuntary commitment laws for those alleged to pose an IMMINENT danger to themselves or others DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS.

ERPOs (Red Flag Laws) remove any requirement of imminence, and replace “due to mental illness” with “due to ownership of firearms”.

Additionally, involuntary commitment laws do afford some of the process that is due. ERPOs provide none, and are implementable arbitrarily on the whim and word of … well, anybody.

I’m not sure that the first two commenters realize that Blake’s “two steps” are both implemented by Red Flag Laws. There isn’t some other “step” yet to come. There is only time.

Time to pass “Red Flag Laws” in all 50 states. Time to access the ATFs registry of gun purchases one gun at a time. Time to pass laws to give “rewards” to citizens for “flagging” other citizens. Time to “red flag” gun owners one-by-one.

In other words, whoever you are, if you own a gun: your time is coming.